About your Search

20130201
20130228
Search Results 0 to 13 of about 14 (some duplicates have been removed)
, the senate majority leader, harry reid attacked it on tuesday. >> everyone has to look at the source where it comes from. a source that has brought up a lot of non-issues. i've told you how i feel about the source of this stuff. and it's really, very very typical for the source. >> bill: now, all fair minded americans will presume that senator menendez is innocent until proven guilty of any allegations, but in general, exploiting children is the worst possible scenario for any politician, and the evidence shows that he did not disclose about the jet trips, but that's a trifle compared to the under age always. they held it back for some time. but now, the story has advanced far beyond the rumor stage, and as an american, i hope that he had nothing to do with exploiting children, i hope. fox's news hour with laura ingram, and how do you read this. >> well, if the allegations are true, he's going to have to step down. >> bill: he'll go to prison. >> yes, we're talking about politics for a moment. and harry reid, i understand that he wants to write off anything that the daily caller is saying,
, we're talking about politics for a moment. and harry reid, i understand that he wants to write off anything that the daily caller is saying, and they backed off everything said for the day, but basically, they're punching on anything said before senator menendez. when you're a public official and elected, six, seven weeks ago by the people of your state to represent them, you have to hold yourself out as someone worthy of the trust of the public. and the late payments for the jet trips not withstanding, he violated senate ethics rules by not reporting those as significant gifts, and that in and of itself is serious. >> bill: he took the trips in august of 2010, and reimbursed the government in january of 2013, after the daily caller exposed the story. >> what it reminds me of a little bit is what happened with the john edwards story. of course one publication, the national enquirer was covering it, and pretty much every stayed away from it, and poo pooed it, and a significant time later, the national inquirer was right and they had done good reporting. i don't know the background o
checks. that's helped them win more elections in red states and people like harry reid get elected in nevada, a pretty pro-gun state. the question is, is that going to be productive for people who want to see gun control get passed? will this mean an increased prag ma tichl, mean that the issue has a better chance of getting through? >> and what's the answer to that question? do we know? >> i don't have a crystal ball, but if you talk to people who support gun control, they have been beaten down for a long time, losing consistently for 20 years will do that to you. and they feel better than they ever have. there is, as you know, a lot of momentum behind this issue. a democratic president who has the bully pulpit who is using this on his agenda and now we have even some republicans coming to the table and signaling that there may be some kind of bipartisan action that can get through congress on gun control. that would be the first time since the brady bill in 1993, if that happens. >> molly ball from "the atlantic," thank you very much. >>> first lady michelle obama will go to chic
that a cabinet secretary needed 60 votes and both of those bush nominees facing harry reid and democrats and environmental agency head. both had to meet 60 vote threshold. now it has happened to hagel. the third time in ten years. so it's not unprecedented. my question to you, why rush it? >> because the department of defense is responsible for our military. we are currently in conflict right now. i think this is something that has to deal with national security. you really need to get serious and get to work here. we can't be talking about things that are not relevant. they are asking for information about benghazi and chuck hagel had nothing to do with benghazi. if you wanted questions about that you need to talk on other people. >> heather: they got one of those questions answered, that is whether or not president obama himself personally called libyan officials on the night of september 11th but the respect on hagel to get a simple answer which we now know the answer was no. brad? >> you are absolutely right. we had some leverage over the white house and hagel was used at that levera
and need more time. it was harry reid who called this vote as sort of an attempt to call their bluff saying this is enough, you're delaying this for no reason but i don't think this is going to help the republicans' image especially when they're going around saying we're not actually trying to stop this nomination. we're not actually filibustering, so what are they doing? i think especially for people who are sick of the sort of washington games, this isn't a good image for them. >> jake, let's talk about this break that congress is on. house speaker nancy pelosi blamed republicans for not using this time more productively. take a listen. >> they manufactured the crisis and instead of having us try to avert that crisis they go on a nine-day recess. why? ? why? people outside the congress are saying no deal, no break. >> why, jake, why? >> nancy pelosi did similar things when she had control but that simplifies a complicated issue. democrats and republicans and the president are miles apart when it comes to averting the sequester. democrats want to raise taxes. republicans say they don't wan
senate and harry reid is in no position to point fingers at people for inaction, right? >> we ought to pass a budget and we're going to pass a budget this year. but let's also lack at the fact that there's not a single plan out there. i've been involved in every one of these bipartisan plans that hasn't said, you need about, on the minimum, about $1.2 trillion if you're going to do a new revenue, if you're going to do a $4 trillion deficit reduction plan. i'm all for believing we have boot got to do more entitlement reform, but we have to do more revenues as well. and opposed to going through all of these stupid cuts, not only have we heard about 750,000 lost jobs, but in certain cases, we'll cost the taxpayers money. when we buy ten tanks, we get a volume discount. we'll break those contracts. when you do four years of cancer research, and don't get the first three years, you'll flush that. that's less meat and eggs going to the grocery store, driving up grocery prices. this was set up to be the stupidest of all options. whoever dreamed it up, who knows at this point, but at this p
john boehner talking to the president or mitch mcconnell talking to the vice president or harry reid, there's a few people at the top trying to make these decisions thinking we should all fall. there's little reach the bottom to find out where we are coming from and it's based on seniority. that hasn't worked well. we haven't been able to fix much with that type of attitude so i know when we reach out and have 25, 30 of us and we are reaching across the aisle malae -- i will give you a perfect example. we had a problem with revenue and people said we don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. we have people on the other side saying we don't spending problem, we have a revenue problem. they are both right and they are both wrong. how do we get people on the other side if a republican says i don't want any more revenue but they said it might not be that it's just i don't like the way that you spend the money and the democrats say okay. can we come to an agreement? if we vote to have revenue and also you are asking me as a democrat if we have new revenue can you spend it
Search Results 0 to 13 of about 14 (some duplicates have been removed)